User talk:Simonm223

I'm also WP:AWARE of WP:GS/UYGHUR but that doesn't work for the DS/aware template.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

If I have left you a message: please answer on my talk page, else inform me.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

ProKMT

I’m not sure they should be editing any China related articles. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely don't think they should - but I'm not inclined to take another person to AN/I for WP:CIR when I've already involved in the two oldest disputes that haven't yet been archived there. Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t blame you. They are editing at a prodigious rate. Unusual for someone not trying to get 500. Doug Weller talk 20:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to look a lot like WP:RADAR - I'm a bit concerned about their tendency to page-hop and just ignore any comments suggesting they discuss edits. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So are you asking me to do something? Doug Weller talk 13:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe a warning from an admin might carry more weight at this point - I don't want to give the appearance of stalking a user but these dozens of small edits across multiple pages are looking like a worrying pattern. If I thought they'd actually do it I'd suggest they stop for a moment and go to Wikiproject China to discuss the overall thrust of what they're doing. But I don't have much confidence they'll listen at this point. Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I would word it, sorry. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision in the Venezuelan politics case posted

The proposed decision in the open Venezuelan politics arbitration case has been posted. Comments on the proposed decision may be brought to the attention of the committee at the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No you were right

Springee just responded by telling giving me a contentious topic alert.

Yeah I just realized that telling you personally that, though we both found out about the problem article at the same time, might give fodder to other users to cry canvassing. I always try to operate firmly within Wikipedia rules so thought better of posting for that reason. For obvious reasons I trust you to act with regard to that article as you would have with the information you already had at your disposal and notwithstanding my concerns. :) Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is not canvassing for two editors to talk openly on a talk page about the sort of egregious ugliness I just saw. It would not even be canvassing to post it at a noticeboard, depending on how it was done. Nor would it be canvassing for you to use the email link that is enabled on my page. I was going to tell you that this looks like they got tired of getting shut down on the main pages and made their own. But. This just became my top priority; I was about to write up the fact that we are using sources stealth funded by the Manning Foundation at Jordan Peterson, but I really need to look into who did this and what happened. Ugh ugh and ugh. 13:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Game Science. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You have made several edits trying to remove a mainstream media source [1][2][3]. --Cold Season (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might want to review WP:DTR Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cand q

Thank you for standing for arbitrator. I am far away from it all (travel, mourning), not in the mood, so just an informal question you can answer or ignore:

Liviu Holender chose lieder by five composers whose music was banned by the Nazis—Schreker, Zemlinsky, Mahler, Korngold and Schönberg—for a recital at the Oper Frankfurt.

What does this 2024 DYK tell you about infoboxes for classical composers in 2024? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would suggest that Holender is fond of early modernist composers - and felt responding to Nazi censorship of art still was relevant as a curatorial statement today. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Well, 11 years ago infoboxes for classical composers where a hot topic. If you look at the talk pages of the 5 composers, do you think they still are? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consistency in the infoboxes across these five composers. Schreker and Zemlinsky have one template, Mahler doesn't have an infobox, then Korngold and Schoenberg have different layouts for theirs. The Korngold talk page refers to heated discussion about infoboxes in 2007. There's a recent discussion at Schoenberg about infoboxes that is resolved with a gesture in the direction of the W:MOS. There is a current, long-running and lively debate about infoboxes at the Mahler talk page that should probably have been put to an RfC some time ago. There's no conversation at the Zemlinsky page unless it's been archived but, considering nothing has been archived since 2007, I find that unlikely. Likewise with Schreker there's no indication of any discussion about infoboxes in the last 15 years. It would appear that the page of the most famous composer of the five remains watched by holdouts who disagree with putting infoboxes on composers but that these other four pages either didn't have activist watchers or consensus simply played out differently.

The truth is that while I see the shadow of an entrenched conflict, via Mahler, I don't think this is anywhere near the point where arbitration is called on. In the Mahler case there's still RfC, request for 3O and dispute resolution as possible steps to resolve the half-year long debate. I'm not certain if this is what you're looking for. Simonm223 (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice, in the Mahler discussion, that you and Tim riley appear to have history surrounding the question of infoboxes. I commend your restraint not to have cautioned him on civility in that moment as I might have (lol). However, based just on the Mahler talk page, I'd say that the best course of action would probably be an RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, as it seems you're hoping to see whether candidates have some basic on-wiki research skills I did find this arbitration case [4] which I'm now reading. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've finished reading the file. I'm not sure how things got that bad over the topic of infoboxes a decade ago but I do hope that cooler heads can prevail in general today. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will vote for you! Inquiring mind! - You may study further, the RfC for Mozart is in Archive 16 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel requests

Hi, it defeats the purpose of oversight to post requests at high profile noticeboards: the edit notice you see while you are are posting says If the issue or concern involves a privacy-related matter, or involves any potential libel or defamation, do not post it here. If you need an edit or log entry to be revision-deleted or suppressed (oversighted), or if you need to discuss any privacy-related matters, please send the relevant diffs and information either using this form, or via e-mail to [email protected]. If a suppression action is pending, consider asking an administrator privately to revision-delete the information in the meantime. Revision deletion and suppression may also be requested privately via IRC: #wikipedia-en-revdel. Oversight usually deal with it ASAP. SerialNumber54129 16:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you can trout me for that one. I know that. I just did a stupid. I'm writing the email now. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries—and sorry about my slightly robust edit summary—nothing personal! SerialNumber54129 17:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no problem. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've suppressed some revisions, and opened a discussion on the OS list. Don't worry about the email unless there's more info you need to send us that isn't in the page history or in your AN post. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. But, as a note, I'd already sent the email by the time you replied to me here. Thank you for your prompt response. Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I received the tickets in backwards order, but thanks, that's not on you. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're good!

Thanks for the apology at AE. Part of it, though was on me not explaining the entire situation the best, so I'd have been fine without one. I should have been better at pointing out their pattern of bludgeoning / selective interpretation of policy but didn't want to include too many old diffs (lol) so it ended up looking more like a dispute contained to a single article instead of long-term behaviour across the topic area. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I get it. I just like to own up to it when I get the wrong end of the stick. Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

I am here to caution you against leaving pointless messages on others' talk pages that misrepresent both that person's actions and motives.

I did not "go to an article just to chew out an editor regarding his comportment". I visited the page, noticed the comment, and offered my view of the person's suggested edits to guide other editors in the future. I noted this person's obvious bias and suggested that other editors ignore his suggestions for that reason. All of this was and is directly relevant to the content of the page in question.

If you are unable to offer an honest accounting of what happens in a Talk Page discussion, and instead simply offer your misinterpretations as fact, then just move along. Pernoctus (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]